They can't protest in the streets, they can't protest from home, they can't peacefully protest, they can't angrily protest. They're not allowed to declare that their lives matter. They're not allowed to put their fist in the air with a black glove on and bow their head during the anthem and their not allowed to kneel. So what is an acceptable way for black people to protest?

They can't protest in the streets, they can't protest from home, they can't peacefully protest, they can't angrily protest. They're not allowed to declare that their lives matter. They're not allowed to put their fist in the air with a black glove on and bow their head during the anthem and their not allowed to kneel. So what is an acceptable way for black people to protest?

Silly Id82, thinking black people should be allowed to protest.

Logged

Quote from: Jordan Duram

It doesn't concern you, Sister, that kind of absolutist view of the universe? Right and wrong determined solely by a single all-knowing, all powerful being whose judgment cannot be questioned and in whose name the most horrendous acts can be sanctioned without appeal?

Quote from: Supreme Court of Canada

Being required by someone else’s religious beliefs to behave contrary to one’s sexual identity is degrading and disrespectful.

On another note, people really take the national theme song way too seriously.

It is an easy way for people to pretend they're offended or patriotic without actually doing a damn thing. I'd love for them to get this worked up about, say, the trampling of Sterling Brown's 4th Amendment Rights. But that requires paying attention and independent, critical thought.

In fact, has anyone else noticed how ridiculous national anthems even are in the first place? Pretty much every single government in existence decided they are going to pick one song about how their country is just the bee's knees and make it the official theme song, and nobody seems to question the whole strange practice.

The shit we as a species come up with is just truly ridiculous at times.

Eh, its no less idiotic than choosing a random assortment of coloured fabric and symbolistic whatnot and claiming it as our standard, or which random animal best represents our society. Hell, as universal as music is, national theme songs are easily the least surprising "national" thing.

Eh, its no less idiotic than choosing a random assortment of coloured fabric and symbolistic whatnot and claiming it as our standard, or which random animal best represents our society. Hell, as universal as music is, national theme songs are easily the least surprising "national" thing.

Flags make a lot of sense, really. You drape it over a place and it's like claiming that place as "yours", so your army doesn't shoot at it. Drape it over a person and you're saying that person is on your side, don't shoot at them. There's a good reason for flags.

Logged

There is no plague more evil and vile to watch spread than the plague that is the Von Habsburg dynasty.

So fun fact everyone. SCOTUS has already ruled on something very similar when it came to Jehovah's Witnesses being forced to stand for the pledge. Guess what they ruled. Go on guess.

Ironbite-the NFL may be violating the Constitution.

Actually, when it was specifically about Jehovah's Witnesses as a religious matter, the Court ruled against them, holding that Free Exercise did not prevent a school from punishing a student who refused to stand for the Pledge. Their overturning of that ruling (though it was again in a case involving a Jehovah's Witness) rested on the Free Expression clause, holding that anyone had the right, as a matter of speech, to refuse to stand for the Pledge or salute the flag or what have you. (Which is a stronger holding, to be sure, but nonetheless it is a speech, rather than religion, matter, and religious rights are still, technically, circumscribed and those refusing to stand for the Pledge are invoking their Free Expression rather than their Free Exercise rights in doing so.)

But, more saliently, a school is, at some level, an extension of the government (if nothing else, students are bound to be there, whether under threat of legal punishment for themselves or their legal guardians), which is bound to act in accordance with the Constitution, which forbids them from acting in a manner to abridge the rights of free exercise and free expression. The NFL, by contrast, is, ultimately, a private institution. Nothing governmental compels players to play for a team in the NFL. Nothing legal bars a player truly opposed to this from attempting to set up his own competition; if the NFL attempted to prevent that, it would be acting in a monopolistic manner forbidden by antitrust law. Further, some owners (like the Jets' owner) have said that they will personally pay any fines imposed on their players or their team should a player act in contravention of this ban and not compel players to abide by it. (Apparently one version of this proposal had the offending team suffer a 15-yard penalty, which would have been a very different matter.)

I would even note that there is another professional competition, contested under similar (though not identical) rules to those employed in the NFL, conducted in North America, during roughly the same time frame as the NFL, and I imagine they wouldn't mind an influx of talent.

Logged

Quote from: Jordan Duram

It doesn't concern you, Sister, that kind of absolutist view of the universe? Right and wrong determined solely by a single all-knowing, all powerful being whose judgment cannot be questioned and in whose name the most horrendous acts can be sanctioned without appeal?

Quote from: Supreme Court of Canada

Being required by someone else’s religious beliefs to behave contrary to one’s sexual identity is degrading and disrespectful.